Understanding LGBT+ employee networks and how to support them

Dr Anna Einarsdóttir, Professor Karen Mumford, Professor Yvonne Birks, Dr Bridget Lockyer and Dr Melisa Sayli 1 Anna Einarsdóttir, Karen Mumford and Bridget Lockyer* are in York Management School, Melisa Sayli** is in Economics and Related Studies and Yvonne Birks is in Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York

University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD United Kingdom

Published October 2020 © The authors Further copies can be downloaded form https://lgbtnetworks.org.uk

*As of 2nd January 2020 Bridget Lockyer is a Senior Research Fellow in the NHS **As of 15th April 2020 Melisa Sayli is a Research Fellow at the University of Surrey Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) whose funding [grant number ES/N019334/1] made this study possible. The authors thank the research partners; NHS Employers; Stonewall; and Employers Networks for Equality and Inclusion (enei); for supporting the development, progress and dissemination of the research. The authors also thank the Research Advisory Board for their support and guidance, particularly the Chair, Tracy Myhill, for her leadership and for paving the way for the project.

Finally, the authors also thank those who responded to the online surveys, all the LGBT+ networks and research participants who took part in this study and gave their time generously.

3 Contents

Foreword 5 5. Role and impact of LGBT+ Networks 41 Executive Summary 7 Raising awareness and visibility 42 1. LGBT+ Networks 9 Influencing the organisation 43 Supportive space 44 Research Advisory Board 10 What we did 10 6. Voice, silence and (in)visibility 46 Surveys 11 Case studies 12 7. Recommendations 51 Interviewees 13

2. Staff Networks in the NHS 14 Networks 51 Organisations 53

Existence, awareness of and 8. References 54 involvement in staff networks 15 Involvement in staff networks 16 Never been involved 16 Involved, but in the past 16 Currently involved in staff network 17 Why get involved in staff networks 19 Why do allies and others join LGBT+ networks? 22

3. LGBT+ Networks in a nutshell 24

Composition of Networks 24 Disclosure of sexuality and network involvement 27 What do members get in return? 28

4. Operation of LGBT+ Networks 30

Size, roles and (perceived) diversity 30 Format and engagement 32 Activities and participation 32 Materials 35 Allies 37 Challenges 38

4 Foreword

Tracy Myhill | Chief Executive Swansea Bay University Health Board

It is worth recalling that in 2015, Stonewall published a report called Unhealthy Despite the wealth of benefits, this research Attitudes.1 The research highlighted that over again demonstrates that whilst many LGBT+ half of NHS staff didn’t think sexual staff networks undertake important activities, orientation was relevant to healthcare, and they tend to operate on the periphery of their that one in every fourteen members of NHS organisations. staff said that they would feel ‘uncomfortable’ working alongside a trans colleague. Many As the UK’s largest employer, this research NHS staff feel they don’t have the knowledge provides the NHS with a real opportunity to or confidence to stand up for LGBT+ patients consider new ways to influence and change and colleagues who might need such support. the attitudes and behaviours of employees through the work of LGBT+ networks. This At the same time, the NHS has had a proud includes how networks can foster a better history of supporting employee-led staff understanding of their role, reinforcing networks. I have witnessed over the years this with formal mechanisms to ensure that how staff networks have improved the structures, processes and systems support the environment and outcomes for employees operation of the networks. In addition, this and the communities they serve. They have research seeks to ensure that members have been a valuable source of building empathy, the skills and opportunities to behave in a providing support to colleagues, challenging more inclusive way and, finally, that members mindsets, influencing policy and increasing and leaders in the system exemplify new and employee engagement, as well as providing more inclusive behaviours. valuable all-round support. 1 Stonewall. Unhealthy Attitudes: The treatment of LGBT people within This research is also timely. During the health and social care services 2015. Available from: http://www. research stage we saw, in Nov 2018, the stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/unhealthy_attitudes.pdf 5 publication by the UK Government of the LGBT Action Plan.2 The four-year plan contains more than 75 commitments aimed at improving the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In response, the NHS, in March 2019, announced the appointment of the first ever National Advisor for LGBT Health in the NHS, Dr Michael Brady, the Medical Director of the Terrence Higgins Trust and HIV consultant at Kings College Hospital. I welcome the links that the research team have developed with Dr Brady’s team to ensure that the research influences future policy and practice within the NHS.

The report shows unequivocally that, whilst the NHS provides a very positive space for many LGBT+ networks, there is a real need for the sector to engage with LGBT+ networks and to review how it provides support for networks in order to ensure that NHS organisations maximise the benefits available from their LGBT+ networks.

Finally, as a Stonewall Ambassador and openly gay chief executive of an NHS organisation, I have been proud to stand up for LGBT people and I was delighted to be appointed the chair of this research so that I could play a greater role in this agenda nationally. I am determined to support the NHS to work better for LGBT people because no matter what your gender identity or sexual orientation is, you should be able to reach your full potential.

2 Government Equalities Office, LGBT Action Plan, July 2018. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721367/GEO-LGBT-Action-Plan. 6 pdf Executive Summary

This report summarises the findings of Our report shows: a study into lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) employee networks • People join LGBT+ networks for different within the NHS. Funded by the Economic reasons. Most LGBT+ identifying and Social Research Council, the research employees join for strategic reasons was carried out by the University of York in (66.2%) or to meet people who share partnership with NHS Employers, Stonewall similar identities (61.2%), whereas allies and Employers Networks for Inclusion join to be more aware of LGBT+ related (enei), and generates a comprehensive matters (60%) or for strategic reasons picture of LGBT+ employee networks and (52.5%). their operations. Drawing on surveys of NHS trusts, over 4000 NHS employees • LGBT+ networks lack both gender and within trusts in England, and 9 case studies sexual diversity, with the largest group of LGBT+ networks in NHS organisations being gay men (41.8%), then lesbians in England (7), Scotland (1) and Wales (1), (22.4%), trans individuals (9.1%) and comprising observations of network activities bisexuals (3.6%). Yet, reports of outreach (45) and interviews (66) with network programmes to improve the diversity of members (45), HR representatives (5), EDI network members are rare (14%). leads (8) and chief executives (8), the report addresses the purpose and function of • Network members are more open (70%) networks; the composition of members; the about their sexuality than those who are sustainability of networks and their impact. not members (50%). Only 2% of network members are not open about their sexuality, compared to 37% of those who have never been involved in a network. 7 • Two in three network Chairs have no However, with institutional responsibilities formalised time allocation to carry somewhat taking priority, networks may not out the necessary duties for their staff currently offer a supportive space for gender network, and two in five reported that and sexual minority employees to grow as a they complete all network-related work community. on top of their normal working hours.

Our findings further show that meetings are a central activity of most networks. Operationalising networks can afford organisational status and access to resources (e.g. time release and financial support), but neither is guaranteed. Formal agendas can also make meetings feel impersonal, prevent personal sharing and mute discussion around identities.

One major finding is that the purpose of networks seems unclear, and information that could help guide networks is typically not available. Networks also face pressure both to keep activity levels up and to evidence impact. Without concrete evidence of local issues that need addressing, activities tend to be generic. Many rely on rainbow material or other free merchandise to raise awareness, signal understanding of LGBT+ related matters, or to showcase the organisation as inclusive, with outcomes from these - and culture change more generally - difficult to measure.

Further findings suggest that LGBT+ networks are far from being diverse or representative of the groups that they claim to represent. Discussions around membership are given considerable space at (some) network meetings, but they are generally about numbers and the size of the networks instead of LGBT+ diversity or any other forms of diversity. Networks also lack critical information about their members. Consequently, under- (and over-) representation of individual groups remains hidden, and networks continue to fall back on a collective voice, which largely does not represent the wider or specific groups.

Overall, our analysis shows that the role and impact of LGBT+ networks concerns three main areas: raising awareness and visibility; influencing the organisation; and creating 8 a supportive space and work environment. 1. LGBT+ Networks

Gender and sexual minority employees form Despite the above developments, the evidence a part of wider organisational diversity in base on LGBT+ employee networks remains the British workplace. The rising number limited and partial, leaving a large knowledge of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender gap on how networks function and their (LGBT) employee networks and the injection capacity to change the experiences of LGBT+ of LGBT+ related matters into equality and employees at work. To respond to these diversity training are both clear indicators concerns, the project has two principal aims: of the drive to promote inclusion of gender First, to establish fuller understanding of how and sexual minorities at work and the LGBT+ networks function, and second, to need to address difference. Yet for many explore how networks may be mobilised as LGBT+ employees, their experiences at drivers for inclusive work environments. work continue to be clouded by bullying, harassment and discrimination (Bachmann Based on this, the following objectives were & Gooch, 2018; Einarsdóttir, Hoel, & Lewis, set: 2015; 2016; Hoel, Lewis, & Einarsdóttir, 2014; in press), reinforcing doubts about 1. Establish a baseline understanding of how the effectiveness of general equality and LGBT+ employee networks operate; diversity training (Cocchiara, Connerley, 2. Map network membership and explore & Bell, 2010; Jones, King, Nelson, Geller, & ways of addressing the insufficient Bowes-Sperry, 2013), but equally, the alleged representation of different groups within transformational and supporting capacities the networks; of LGBT+ employee networks (Colgan & 3. Understand what support formats are in McKearney, 2012; Jonsen, Tatli, Özbilgin, & place to achieve the network’s vision and Bell, 2013). what barriers exist to realise this vision; 4. Identify ways of using LGBT+ employee 9 networks to address negativity towards Institute of Personnel and Development gender and sexual minorities more • Ed Houghton – Chartered Institute of effectively. Personnel and Development • Ciprian Arhire – Chartered Institute of Involving the largest UK employer, the Personnel and Development National Health Service (NHS), the research • Dianah Worman OBE – Inclusive Talent was launched in May 2017 and led by a team • Patrick Price – Northumbria NHS Trust of researchers at the University of York: Dr • Sandy Zavery – Leicestershire Partnership Anna Einarsdóttir (Principal Investigator), NHS Trust Professor Karen Mumford (Co-investigator), • Priti Bhatt – Chelsea and Westminster Professor Yvonne Birks (Co-investigator), Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Dr Bridget Lockyer (Research Associate) • Lucy Wilkinson – Care Quality and Dr Melisa Sayli (Research Associate). Commission The project, hereafter referred to as LGBT+ • Paul Deemer – NHS Employers Networks, builds on partnership with NHS • Jess Gregson – NHS Employers Employers, Stonewall and The Employers • Mohamed Jogi – NHS Employers Network for Equality & Inclusion (enei), and • Samantha Martin – University of York is further supported by a specially convened advisory board represented by professionals inside and outside of the NHS. What we did

The LGBT+ Networks project generates two Research Advisory Board new datasets: quantitative survey data and qualitative case study material. 3 Adopting Our advisory board includes academics, a mixed method approach to investigating policy-makers and EDI practitioners in LGBT+ employee networks proved critical, the NHS, and representatives working in improving the overall robustness of our data trade unions and civil society organisations. and subsequent analysis. To begin with, the Throughout the duration of the LGBT+ case study material helped to inform the Networks project, we met eight times to design of our surveys and relevant survey discuss the project and its progress, and instruments. Then, by merging multiple benefited from the advice and expertise of the data sources, a more authentic and nuanced advisory board members. The members share picture of LGBT+ staff networks was a commitment to the success of the research generated that included the environment that and its lasting impact. The advisory board they operate in. With a single source, this members included: would not have been possible.

• Tracy Myhill, Chief Executive Swansea Mapping the broad view, the survey data Bay University Health Board – Chair capture the current state of affairs on staff • Carola Towle – Unison networks in general, and LGBT+ networks • Jackie Driver – Equality and Human in particular. The survey data details the Rights Commission prevalence, position and shape of staff • Paul Martin – LGBT Foundation networks and records a series of employee • Emma Kosmin – Stonewall characteristics of NHS staff working in • Peter Hall – Employers Network for trusts in England. In contrast, the case Equality and Inclusion study material presents the finer details and • Lynne Carter – NHS Bradford District complexities of LGBT+ networks, involving and Craven CCGs a total of nine LGBT+ staff networks in • Prof Mustafa Ozbilgin – Brunel NHS organisations located across England, University Scotland and Wales. These data allowed us • Prof Surya Monro – University of to explore networks in operation, plus the Huddersfield 3 The datasets from our projects will be made available through the UK 10 • Dr Jill Miller MCIPD – Chartered Data Service. WHAT WE DID

Created two new data sets

Quantitative survey data Qualitative case studies

Prevalence Position Shape Operations MembershipMembership Support

of LGBT+ Networks

ins and outs of membership and available and the second was for all staff working in support. We now explore both datasets - the NHS trusts located in England. surveys and case studies - in more detail. 1. The Human Resources & Equality and Surveys Diversity Survey was designed to collect information from HR departments on the trusts’ workforces, staff networks, equality Reaching groups with less visible and often and diversity matters, and workplace stigmatised identities, including gender and environments. The data were collected in sexual minorities, is a challenging task for two waves: first from 29th October 2018 researchers, who often refer to this group as to 7th February 2019, and then between ‘hard to reach’ and ‘hard to research’. We used 24th April and 31st May 2019. Qualtrics to design online surveys to reach all staff working in NHS trusts in England. 2. The NHS Employee Engagement Survey An online survey is an effective way of was designed to collect information from collecting information for two reasons: (1) it NHS employees in England about their provides anonymity and confidentiality for trusts and their work environments, those who may require it. Individuals are not staff networks, views about their job identifiable in our dataset; (2) it covers a large and demographics. Data were collected geographical area in a time and cost-efficient from 24th January to 31st May 2019 way. Our surveys comply with approved (Einarsdóttir, Mumford, Birks, Aguirre, GDPR procedures and all data are securely Lockyer and Sayli, 2020). stored in a password-protected University of York server. These two datasets can be linked to contextualise the function of staff networks We designed and implemented two surveys to operating in NHS trusts in England. understand the emergence and drivers of staff Both surveys were piloted before their launch networks and their impact on employees. The dates by academics at the University of York, first was for human resources professionals, selected NHS employees and members of 11 the project advisory board. Piloting enabled LGBT+ network, we asked about the us to evaluate whether the questions were composition of their network, their role, appropriate for their intended purpose. engagement channels, activities and the The feedback from the piloting process was time they spend on network activities. further used to modify some questions that were unclear and to ensure that questions Our NHS Employee Engagement Survey were tailored for NHS staff. contains responses from 4,237 NHS employees from 212 different NHS trusts The surveys were disseminated via different in England. The dataset includes 516 self- channels, including, but not limited to, identifying LGBT+ employees, totalling 12% personalised emails to HR professionals of our sample. In this subsample, 64.2% and EDI leads, social media campaigns, identify as gay/lesbian, 23.8% as bisexual, online announcements (e.g., on the NHS 6.4% as other, 4.3% don’t know and 1.4% Confederation website), and through identify as heterosexual. This latter statistic publications in NHS staff and workforce results from the fact that our sample includes bulletins. 29 transgender employees, 7 (24%) of whom identify as heterosexual. NHS Employee Engagement Survey

The survey consists of seven question Case studies blocks capturing background information, trust and occupation, staff networks, The qualitative part of the study involved job characteristics, labour market networks from nine NHS organisations, experience, views about jobs and workplace located in England (7), Scotland (1) and characteristics. For the purposes of this Wales (1). We selected these case studies report we focus on the following measures: to ensure diversity in organisation type, location and performance on the Stonewall • All our respondents were asked a series of UK Workplace Equality Index. The sample demographic questions including: included two community and mental health 1. Year of birth services trusts; two mental health trusts; two 2. Gender identity acute teaching hospital trusts; one service 3. Sexual identity provider; an ambulance trust and a health 4. Ethnicity board. Some of the organisations were 5. Long-term sickness, disability located in large cities and others in semi-rural 6. Qualifications areas. There was also a range in geographical 7. Relationship status coverage. Three of the case study networks 8. Dependent children were from organisations that were placed relatively high on the 2017 Stonewall Index, • Sexual minority employees were asked three were placed lower, and three had not about how open they are about their submitted an application to the index that sexuality at work and with whom they year. To ensure anonymity, we named these share their sexual identity. case studies Trust A to Trust I. • All our respondents were asked about Each network was visited seven times. First, the existence of staff networks and how we visited for an introductory meeting to they heard about them. Routed questions explain our project and obtain consent for the followed up views on staff networks and if networks’ participation in the research. We the respondents are involved in any staff then attended a further five times to observe network. For those who engage with more and take part in network meetings or events, than one staff network, we asked which generating a total of 45 observations. The staff network they prioritised. meetings were both audio and video recorded (with the exception of those that took place • For employees who are involved in an 12 in larger, more public settings), transcribed verbatim, and we also took substantial field had a few. Overall, our sample is more diverse notes. Our last visit involved a feedback than the networks themselves, as we tried meeting where we presented and discussed to ensure as diverse a set of respondents as our initial findings with the network, which possible. we also audio recorded and transcribed. The observation and feedback period took place over two years, from September 2017 to October 2019.

In addition to the observations, we conducted at least seven interviews at each trust. Five were with network members, one was with an EDI or HR representative and one was with the chief executive of the organisation. These ratios differed slightly in some networks, and in one network (Trust C) we were unable to interview the chief executive. Instead, we interviewed two senior managers. In total, we carried out 66 interviews, audio recorded and transcribed.

Interviewees

We interviewed 66 individuals working in nine trusts. Among these were 45 members, five HR representatives, eight EDI representatives (some EDI reps were also network members) and eight chief executives. Overall, half were female, 45.5% were male and 4.5% (3) were non-binary. Just over a third of the chief executives we interviewed were female (37.5%), 50 % of EDI representatives were female, with 12.5% (1) identifying as non-binary, and 100 % of the HR representatives were women. In terms of the members, 46.7% (21) were female, 48.9% (22) were male, and 4.4% (2) non-binary. Of the 66 interviewees, two did not share their sexual identity. Among those who shared, 6.3% (4) were bisexual, 48.4% (31) were gay men/lesbian, 43.7% (28) heterosexual, and one person identified as other. We also interviewed three transgender employees - one who identified as bisexual and two as gay/lesbian.

In terms of our network members, we attempted to make our interviewee sample as close to being fully representative as possible. For example, if the network had a large proportion of allies, we interviewed more of them then we would in a network that only 13 2. Staff Networks in the NHS

Existence, awareness of and white background).4 This may indicate that minority employees are more alert to the involvement in staff networks existence of networks in their organisation as a way to meet people from similar Nearly half of our survey respondents (47%) backgrounds, to share experiences at work were aware of staff networks in their trusts, and to support each other. 48% were unsure if there are staff networks and the remaining 5% reported that there We considered tenure in the job as a potential are no staff networks in their trust. In 98% of explanation for varying awareness among these cases, at least one individual from the employees. However, no significant difference same trust confirmed the existence of a staff was found between tenure in the position and network in their trust. awareness of staff networks. The vast majority of those who are aware of staff networks heard about the networks from staff bulletins (71%), co-workers (41%), or posters and events organised by staff networks (22%).

Minority groups are more likely to be aware of staff networks. For example, significantly more LGBT+ employees are aware of staff networks in their trust (74%) than 4 There is no knowledge gap about the existence of staff networks in heterosexual/cisgender employees (44%). their trusts between lesbian, gay men, bisexual and trans employees. A similar pattern was evident for ethnic On the other hand, those who are ‘unsure’ and ‘other’ identifying em- minorities (66% vs 45% employees from a ployees are less likely to know about the existence of staff networks 14 than LGBT+ staff. 15 Involvement in staff networks focuses on these groups only. Given our difficulties in ascertaining the size and All the employees represented above are composition of our case study networks, the aware that there is at least one staff network survey offered a good opportunity to explore, in their trust, and the following section in some detail, the reasons why people join, why they choose not to join and why they

INVOLVEMENT IN NETWORKS

leave. in attending meetings was a recurring theme Never been involved in case studies, compromising involvement and membership. We will return to the third reason later in this report, when we discuss Half of the employees who were aware of the the relationship between sharing sexual existence of a staff network in their trust had identity and the role of LGBT+ networks. never been involved in a staff network. In exploring this further with our LGBT+ subsample, a common answer selected for never considering joining was that they ‘can’t Involved, but in the past get released from job’ (42%), followed by ‘not interested’ (35%) and ‘don’t want to draw Amongst those who were aware of staff attention to my identity’ (29%).5 Difficulties networks in their trusts, around one in ten had previously been involved in a staff 5 Other reasons for not joining a network include ‘don’t see the point network. of such a network as it will not change things for LGBT+ people at this trust’ (17%), ‘been put off by the people who are involved in the network’ (15%), ‘don’t think networks can provide support for negative In this sample, the most common networks work experiences’ (15%), ‘networks don’t help with career progression’ that people had left are ‘other’ (27%), black, (12%) and ‘don’t like what the network is doing’ (4%). Only 3% of the Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) networks LGBT+ respondents who responded to our question on reasons for not (25%), LGBT+ networks (18%) and women’s 16 joining said that there is no need for networks’ existence. TOP 5 REASONS FOR LEAVING A LGBT+ NETWORK 34 members left their networks

77% 20% 20% 17% 7%

networks (14%). The most frequently selected in LGBT+ networks and other staff networks. reason for leaving their employee network In contrast, the distribution of pay-bands for was ‘struggling to attend meetings’ for all those who have never been involved in a staff types of staff network. This resonates with the network is skewed to the right (i.e., lower group who had never been part of a network, pay bands). Some examples of occupations who felt that they did not have time to make in these bands are: (1) catering assistants, it to the meetings. cleaners; (2) administrative assistants, health care support workers; (3) secretaries, Currently involved in staff network occupational therapy assistants; (4) office supervisors, medical secretaries, assistant nurse practitioners; (5) junior managers, Of all employees who are aware of staff newly qualified midwives, staff nurses, entry- networks, two in five were involved in at level biomedical scientists.6 Employees in least one staff network. They worked in 139 these groups may not be managing their own different NHS trusts in England. Throughout diaries at work, which would make it hard this report, we will focus on this group and a to participate and become involved in staff subsample of LGBT+ network members. networks. Men were more likely than women to be involved in staff networks, but there was no In our sample, people are mostly likely to be particular age profile. Employees who are involved in LGBT+ networks (42.2%). Given involved in staff networks are more likely to the project focus and our communication have a higher educational level (at least a first channels, this is not surprising. We also degree) than those who are not involved in had a good number of respondents who staff networks. are involved in BAME networks (38%) and disability networks (31%). Around two-thirds Using pay bands as an indicator of being able are involved in only one staff network. When to manage one’s own time at work proves employees are involved in more than one staff critical in the issue of taking part in staff network, we asked which staff network they networks and their activities. The figure on prioritise (see figure at bottom page 16). page 16 shows the distribution of pay bands by the groups we defined earlier. Visually, it is evident that individuals in higher paid roles 6 NursingNotesUK. (2017). NHS Agenda for Change Pay Scales 2017- are more likely to be in a staff network. We 2018. Archived from the original on 9 March 2018. [online] Available observe that employees in higher wage bands at: https://web.archive.org/web/20180309123702/http://nursingnotes. co.uk/web/20180309123702oe_/https://nursingnotes.co.uk/agenda- more often take part in staff networks, both change-pay-scales-2017-2018/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2019]. 17 Among those who are involved in an increase their awareness of matters related LGBT+ network alongside other networks, to the network (47%), to do something 62% prioritise an LGBT+ network. Those worthwhile (47%) and to have a strategic in BAME networks prioritise their BAME impact on policy (43%). network slightly higher (66%) and those in disability networks prioritised their disability Despite the identity-based nature of some network somewhat lower (52%). of the staff networks (e.g., BAME, LGBT+, women), meeting with individuals who share A range of factors may explain staff network similar identities (40%) ranked lower than involvement. Each staff network may appeal strategic reasons for joining. This contradicts to different groups with diverse needs, some of the rhetoric surrounding staff purposes and motivations. In general, we networks as a way of building community. found that employees join a staff network to Moreover, only a few employees selected

18 the provision of support (28%) among the heterosexual/cisgender employees do. We reasons for joining a staff network. observed the same pattern in involvement As detailed later in this report, staff networks levels. A significantly higher proportion of are made up of employees with different LGBT+ employees are involved in a staff characteristics and from diverse backgrounds. network. Thus, even within the same staff network, individuals may have varied reasons for From our survey, we identified three taking part in the network. commonly cited reasons for joining an LGBT+ network, both for allies and for LGBT+ identifying employees. The main motivation behind the involvement of allies Why get involved in staff networks was linked to generating impact, whereas meeting with others who share a similar As noted earlier, LGBT+ employees have identity was one of the main motivations for a higher awareness of staff networks than involvement from LGBT+ identifying staff.

Table 1 - Reasons for Joining an LGBT+ Network Allies LGBT+ employees Wanted to have a strategic impact on Wanted to be more aware of LGBT+ related #1 policy related to LGBT+ staff/patients/ matters (60%) service-users in my trust (66.2%) Wanted to have a strategic impact on policy To meet people who share similar #2 related to LGBT+ staff/patients/service- identities (61.2%) users in my trust (52.5%) Wanted to be more aware of LGBT+ #3 To do something worthwhile (35%) related matters (55.4%)

While our survey presents an overview of why employees join LGBT+ networks in their trusts, our observations and interviews provided a more detailed account, allowing us to explore the variations between those identifying as LGBT+ and allies.

When we asked employees who identified as LGBT+ about why they were involved in the networks, many focused on personal and social motivations. This speaks to our finding from the survey on ‘meet[ing] with people Kate who share similar identities’. Our interviewees discussed the sense of community that Trust A being in a network offered and feelings of belonging, as the following interview extracts demonstrate7: 19 7 All names have been replaced with pseudonyms. Alistair Simon Trust B Trust F

Gosha Trust I

asking whether they had an opposite sex These responses indicate that they felt, to partner/spouse, for example. One member varying degrees, like outsiders within their from Trust C described overhearing a workplaces and had sought out the network conversation where two colleagues were as a place to feel included and bolstered. Most trying to discern whether he was gay, organisational environments and structures considering that he was ‘smartly dressed’. are inherently heteronormative and The LGBT+ network was envisaged as a cisnormative, and the NHS is no exception. space away from this environment, where The effect of this is often not outright they could be themselves more fully. Their bullying, harassment or discrimination narratives about why they chose to be in the (although this does happen), but micro- networks hint at a sense of isolation at work aggressions such as assumptions, comments, and a fear of negative experiences. Being jokes, silences and snubs. part of the network was a way of building a support system at work and forging During meetings and in our interviews, connections with people from different network members would bring up instances parts of the organisation, as Nina and Margo 20 of work colleagues assuming their identities, discussed in their interviews: Nina Margo Trust C Trust G

Margo suggested she was nervous about being ‘out’ at work, and joined the network as a way to feel connected with other people in a similar situation. Margo had subsequently told her colleagues about her partner and indicated that making friends and connections in the network had helped give her the confidence to do that. The low levels of LGBT+ staff sharing their identities in institutional scoping activities such as the annual staff survey is recognised as a problem within the NHS. Being ‘out’ at work is generally deemed as positive for individual employees’ wellbeing and for the organisation. Sharing sexual and gender identities, however, is not a one-off event but a continual process, as LGBT+ workers may need to share with each new colleague they interact with. This can make ‘coming out’ not just frustrating, but an act(s) with potentially negative consequences, dependent on colleagues’ reactions. For Margo, it was not that the friends and connections she made through the network offered her specific support in ‘coming out’ to her colleagues, but knowing they were there offered some comfort. 21 Why do allies and others join LGBT+ networks? Often, they had a family member who identified as LGBT+ and they felt compelled A number of allies we interviewed also had to be involved and show support, like Erin personal reasons for joining the network. and Karina:

Karina Erin Trust D Trust A

to act when necessary. Similarly, there were In these cases, their personal experience had also allies who were involved in the network led them to a fuller realisation of the issues because it was related to their role in some that LGBT+ people faced within both their way, like Sally. organisation and wider society. Sally wanted to effect change in her Other allies discussed witnessing incidents organisation and improve things for staff. of negative behaviour towards LGBT+ She worked in recruitment and saw her that staff that had galvanised them to be part of being part of the network could help make the network. They discussed finding these her more effective at her job, as she would cases handled badly or inappropriately at increase her ability to attract LGBT+ staff. their current or previous organisation and For the EDI staff, attending the meetings was saw membership of the group as a way to also viewed as an important part of their job, keep informed about how to manage future ensuring she was kept up to date with LGBT+ 22 situations and to give them more confidence related matters. Sally - Trust C

occasionally attended meetings, in order to For Naz, going to meetings was not just a foster goodwill and be seen to be showing way of accessing knowledge; she felt it was support for the network, in the hope that it significant that people saw her and interacted would bolster the group in some way. For the with her, and knew that she supported the senior management, their involvement was network. The senior managers we interviewed conceptualised as helping the network rather often gave similar reasons for why they than the network helping them.

Naz - Trust B

patients. They often found it difficult to Almost all the network members we articulate what the nature of this change interviewed - LGBT+ identifying and allies would be and how the network would - wanted to make a difference, which also contribute to it. This was partly because they shows in our survey responses as ranking were often unable to identify the specific among the most commonly cited reason for problems that their organisation faced, which joining the network. They wanted to effect we will discuss below. Many felt a sense of change in their organisation that would duty or responsibility to change things for the have a positive impact on LGBT+ staff and next generation, because now they felt safe

Michael - Trust C 23 3. LGBT+ Networks in a nutshell

and comfortable to do this, such as Michael: are more likely to prioritise other networks above the LGBT+ network. Only 29% of Composition of Networks allies prioritise LGBT+ networks. Among the LGBT+ identifying sample, bisexual From our survey responses, we identified 325 employees were the least likely group to employees who are involved in an LGBT+ prioritise an LGBT+ network (50%), and in network across 92 different NHS trusts in total they make up 5% of LGBT+ network England. Overall, three in five employees members. prioritise the LGBT+ network among other staff networks. From this point onwards, we make a distinction between those who say they are involved in an LGBT+ network and those who prioritise the LGBT+ network. For ease, we refer to the group that prioritise the LGBT+ network as ‘members’ and define their increased involvement as ‘membership’.

The figure on page 23 demonstrates LGBT+ network involvement (bars) and membership (red line) by employees’ sexual and gender identities. Almost half of the employees who are involved in an LGBT+ network are allies. This group is larger than any of the sexual and gender minority groups; however, allies 24 give the least weight to LGBT+ networks and In terms of gender, 75% of male employees When exploring the sexual and gender who stated involvement in an LGBT+ identity composition of LGBT+ networks, we network are also members, whereas only found that the largest individual segment of 50% of the women are members. The lower members are gay men (42%), as shown in the rate of involvement by women compared to figure below. men is due to a smaller number of women identifying as LGBT+.

In our sample of LGBT+ network members, LGBT+ employees who are members of 40 are allies (33 female and 7 male). Among LGBT+ networks are significantly younger the 18 transgender members, 3 identify as than allies. However, within LGBT+ heterosexual (female), 2 as lesbian, 1 non- employee groups, age does not appear to play binary gay, 4 as bisexual (1 male, 1 female, a role in network involvement. 2 non-binary), 7 as ‘other’ (2 male, 5 non- binary), and 1 female responded ‘I don’t In our sample, LGBT+ staff have higher know’ when asked about sexuality. education levels (e.g., first and postgraduate degrees) than heterosexual cisgender 25 employees. We observed a similar pattern members appeared to reflect our survey among staff who are not involved in any staff findings about LGBT+ network members: network. However, heterosexual cisgender 4% (2) bisexual, 35.6% (16) gay men, 28.9% staff who are involved in a network (including (13) lesbians, 22% (10) heterosexual and allies) are significantly more educated than cisgender, 4% (2) trans, one other and one heterosexual cisgender staff who are not who preferred not to say. involved in any staff network. In terms of managerial responsibilities, 37.8% In our case studies, our interviewees hold of the members did not have managerial different positions at their trust and within duties, 8.9% (4) were supervisors and 51% the networks. All the CEOs we interviewed (23) were managers. Around 87% of the identified as heterosexual and cisgender, 75% complete set of interviewees came from a of EDI leads identified as heterosexual and white background. cisgender, with one identifying as bisexual and one trans. 80% of the HR representatives The table below shows some selected we interviewed were heterosexual and characteristics of our respondents, split cisgender, with one (20%) preferring not to between LGBT+ employees and allies and say. The sexual diversity among interviewed the degree of network involvement from our survey. Table 2 - Respondent Characteristics Not involved in any staff networks Prioritise other networks Prioritise LGBT+ networks Heterosexual Heterosexual LGBT+ LGBT+ Allies LGBT+ cisgender cisgender % Male 19.0% 47.3% 19.2% 48.8% 17.5% 60.4% Age 46.8 41.3 48.7 43.9 48.2 42.3 % ethnic minority 10.0% 8.1% 31.7% 24.4% 5.0% 5.1% background % in couple 84.9% 74.5% 84.4% 67.4% 87.2% 76.4% % first degree and 56.6% 65.7% 75.1% 75.5% 80.0% 66.9% higher % with disability 32.2% 40.3% 41.2% 46.6% 32.5% 49.7% NHS regions, % North of 22.9% 24.4% 24.9% 20.0% 12.5% 22.3% England Midlands and East of 35.9% 26.9% 26.9% 20.0% 22.5% 22.3% England London 11.9% 25.1% 29.9% 37.8% 12.5% 24.8% South West 13.7% 7.1% 6.2% 4.4% 2.5% 8.9% South East 15.5% 16.6% 12.2% 17.8% 50.0% 21.7% % work 70.4% 83.4% 78.7% 82.2% 75.0% 86.6% full-time % permanent 91.7% 90.8% 91.4% 86.7% 95.0% 94.3% contract Average tenure in 7.2 5.7 6.9 4.9 8.1 5.7 current post (years)

% experience regular 6.3% 5.3% 7.8% 2.2% 2.5% 5.1% bullying

Total number of 3,061 283 502 45 40 157 observations

Notes: ‘Ethnic minority background’ includes Asian, black and mixed ethnicities. ‘In couple’ 26 includes married, cohabiting and living-apart-together couples. Disclosure of sexuality and network In our 486 LGBT+ sample overall: • Just over half are ‘open’ about their sexual involvement identity in their workplace • 36% are ‘semi-open’ about their sexuality. Sexual minority groups face a unique One third of the ‘semi-open’ LGBT+ staff challenge in the workplace compared to their are passively open about their identities heterosexual colleagues, such as identity- • 12% are ‘not open’, with the majority management and ‘disclosure’ of identity. A giving a heterosexual impression at work common assumption on sexual identity is that it is hidden unless wilfully disclosed. Among 152 LGBT+ employees8 who are In other words, it makes sexual minority LGBT+ network members: employees invisible unless they want to • 30% are ‘totally open’ come out. The absence and limited openness • 40% ‘make no secret about it’ of sexual identity often result in a lack of • 22% reveal only if asked visibility and voice from LGBT+ employees. • 7% avoid drawing attention to their Concealing one’s identity at work adds sexuality. additional stress, which might have a negative • 2% of the LGBT+ network members are impact on well-being, productivity at work ‘not open’ about their sexuality at work, and satisfaction derived from work. compared to 37% for those who have never been involved in a staff network Co-workers often presume that an individual may identify as non-heterosexual from Only 2% of the LGBT+ network members stereotypical behaviours or social cues. In this were not open about their sexuality, which fashion, being involved in an LGBT+ network is much lower than for employees who had may seem like an explicit act of identity never been involved in a staff network (37%). management. For LGBT+ employees who are LGBT+ employees who are more open open about their sexuality, LGBT+ networks about their sexuality in the workplace are provide a platform to voice concerns and more likely to be in an LGBT+ network. also take action on behalf of ‘closeted’ sexual While there is a positive correlation between minority employees. Yet, being involved in openness about sexual identity and LGBT+ an LGBT+ network may attract unwanted network involvement, it is not possible to attention to one’s sexuality, which is one of identify the direction of causality. the most cited reasons for not being involved The figures on page 26 show the differences in a network by LGBT+ staff in our survey. in openness between (a) LGBT+ network members and (b) other LGBT+ employees. We asked LGBT+ employees whether they are open about their sexuality at work, As shown in panel (a), all lesbian LGBT+ and to what extent they share their sexual network members are either ‘open’ or identity with their managers, co-workers ‘semi-open’ about their sexuality, whereas and patients/service-users. We refer to a some LGBT+ members are ‘not open’. Yet, respondent as ‘open’ if they have chosen to compared to LGBT+ employees who are not respond as ‘totally open’ or ‘make no secret’ members of an LGBT+ network (panel (b)), about their sexuality at the workplace. LGBT+ members are more open about their Respondents are referred to as ‘semi-open’ sexuality at work. if they ‘reveal [their sexuality] only if asked’ (passive identity management), or ‘avoid[ing] Regardless of network membership, around drawing attention to [their] sexuality’ (active 10% of gay/lesbian staff are ‘not open’ about measures to conceal identity). We also their sexual identity at work. For bisexual have respondents who are ‘not-open’ about employees this proportion is much higher their sexuality at work. These respondents have selected that they ‘give a heterosexual 8 We have 157 LGBT+ respondents who prioritise the LGBT+ networks among a battery of staff networks we listed in our survey. 5 respond- impression’ at work or are ‘not open at all’. ents (3 heterosexual transgender and 2 respondents with “don’t know”) were not routed to the disclosure question due to their answers in the sexuality question. 27 (32% of bisexual women and 28% of bisexual What do members get in return? men). Bisexual women are more ‘open’ about their sexuality at work (33%) than bisexual Members described a level of satisfaction men (18%). As for LGBT+ network members, in making a change or an impact in their the openness pattern is reversed by gender, organisation and the wider world. Zaid from with more bisexual men being ‘open’ (40%) Trust B, for example, talked about chairing than bisexual women (25%). and being a member of the network as ‘fulfilling’: Among 21 LGB transgender employees, all were either ‘semi-open’ or ‘open’ about their For me, it’s just you’re changing the sexuality at work. All female transgender staff experience of people’s lives and that is (4) were ‘open’ about their sexuality, whereas very rewarding. (Zaid, Trust B) half of the male transgender staff were ‘open’ (3) and the other half ‘semi-open’ (3). The Margo from Trust G discussed feeling ‘proud openness behaviour of non-binary LGB of the stuff the network’s achieved’ but also transgender staff (11) is more skewed towards highlighted the social aspects, and that she ‘semi-open’ (72%). We found no significant did not ‘feel as isolated anymore’. Oliver from difference between openness patterns for Trust C referred to the sense of ‘comradery LGB transgender staff by LGBT+ network and achievement’ he felt and specifically 28 membership. the opportunity to work with other LGBT+ people to try and address the issues that the community faced. Interestingly, the allies in our study were more likely to say they benefited from being more informed within their role and knowing where they could be useful to the network, rather than pointing to any personal advantages. From our survey, we found that more than three-quarters of LGBT+ network members were satisfied with their staff network.

29 4. Operation of LGBT+ Networks

Size, roles and (perceived) diversity some outlier responses. When we look at the median, an LGBT+ network has 40 members and 10 core members, which We asked 197 LGBT+ network members is closer to our observations regarding from 61 different NHS trusts in England network meetings and interviews. The about their LGBT+ networks. The key survey large discrepancy between the mean findings are summarised below. and median network sizes may reflect the questions regarding what constitutes • LGBT+ networks are perhaps smaller membership and the significance of than their members believe they are. virtual engagement in some networks, From our case studies, membership of the such as receiving newsletters and emails networks was hard to quantify, as what but not actively being involved in network counted as a member is debatable. The activities. networks would sometimes refer to how many people were on their mailing lists, • LGBT+ networks have high turnover but these were not always kept up to date rates. One in four members has recently and we did not have access to all of them. joined the network (member

• More than half of the LGBT+ network • Not all heterosexual cisgender members are members only and do members identify as ‘straight allies’, and not have any additional roles in the only some have formal responsibilities network. In our case studies, all networks for the network (e.g., being an EDI had people who frequently attended lead). 70% of 40 heterosexual cisgender meetings as part of their job role, such as members identify themselves as straight staff from the EDI or Communications allies in the network, as shown in the teams, admin support or senior managers figure above. The rest of the members are who were acting as sponsors of the heterosexual cisgender members (10%), network for their organisation. Some EDI leads (12.5%), in charge of network occupied a ‘dual-role’, where they both communications (5%) and other (2.5%). identified as LGBT+ and were involved in the networks in a professional capacity. Figure - distribution of network roles by sexual/gender identity

• Office-based occupations dominate networks. From our observations in the meetings, the majority of those who attended the meetings were office-based staff, and the numbers of patient-facing, clinical or domestic staff were small. There was a lot of concern about the low numbers of non-office staff within the networks and strategies to incorporate frontline staff were discussed regularly at meetings. Our survey findings • There was some LGBT+ diversity corroborate with our observations of within the networks but there the majority of the members having was limited discussion about it. more office-based occupations, with the Understanding representation within exception of registered nurses (16.2%). networks was challenging, as people Only 4% of LGBT+ members are medical rarely discussed their identities in and dental staff, 3% are emergency care meetings. From our observations at practitioners and paramedics. The highest network meetings and events, it appeared membership in our sample is from wider as though more men than women were healthcare (20.3%). involved in the networks, though this 31 over-representation was relatively minor. had sought to organise time in meetings Men were more likely to be chairing the where allies were not invited. The first half of networks in our study. In our case studies, their meetings were for LGBT+ identifying there was less outward concern about the members only, and the second half was for lack of bisexual, trans and ethnic minority everyone. They later changed this approach staff within the networks, although many to alternating between separate meetings for did identify it as an issue within their LGBT+ identifying members and meetings interviews. It was our impression that for everyone, as the transition between the those who identified as bisexual or trans two halves of the meeting was quite awkward. were under-represented within these networks. Similarly, there was under- From our observations, we found the representation of ethnic minority staff environment of the meetings friendly but within the LGBT+ case study networks. somewhat depersonalised. The network In part, our survey results support these chairs would often forget to initiate observations. Two-thirds of LGBT+ introductions, even though there would network members find their network regularly be new members in attendance. In diverse in terms of age and sexuality, most of the networks, the meetings followed but members agreed there is a lack of a formal agenda, with many items and some diversity in terms of race and ethnicity parts rushed through due to time constraints. (75%) and gender identity (67%). This meant there was little to no time for personal sharing, general conversation or the debating of issues raised in the meeting. Format and engagement See the sample agenda on page 31 for more insights. Our nine case study networks operate quite similarly, but with a few exceptions. Eight out of nine networks had a regular Activities and participation standing meeting. The frequency of the meetings would be either monthly, bi- The meeting was the central activity of most monthly or quarterly. The network without of the networks, with other activities taking a regular standing meeting (Trust F) would place or being organised at the meetings. meet frequently to organise specific events A number of the networks in the study like Pride or socials. Trust B was the only organised their activities around an ‘LGBT+ network in our study that met outside of calendar of events’, e.g., LGBT History Month, NHS premises, as they met in a local LGBT+ Trans Day of Remembrance, Bi-Visibility community centre. Meetings would take Day etc. This was reflected in the survey data, place in meeting rooms, usually around where we found that 72% of respondents a boardroom-style table and chairs. The were from networks which organised events duration of the meetings ranged from an to mark national and international LGBT+ hour to two hours. days. These dates provided the networks with impetus to do some form of publicity or raise Meetings were typically organised by the awareness in their organisation - for instance, chair and/or co-chair through e-mails sent raising the Pride flag during LGBT History out to the mailing list. Each group had a Month or on the International Day Against chair, four of the trusts had co-chairs. Most of Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia the networks did not have other defined roles, (IDAHO or IDAHOBIT). The flag raising but where they did, it was usually around would usually be conducted with a member social media and communications support. from the senior management team and would Staff from EDI attended in seven out of nine be photographed and distributed internally trusts, and either offered admin support and externally as a means of publicity for the themselves or provided another member trust. Often, networks would be struggling of staff who did - writing the minutes etc. for ideas of activities they could do to mark Allies were involved and present at most these days, and they were often rushed in 32 networks. Trust C was the only network who their planning. Although the calendar of It was usually the chair/ Even though this was co-chairs that had taken a regular item on part in external activities the agenda, chairs/ such as conference co-chairs often attendance or external forgot to instigate training, but sometimes introductions a network member had been able to go as well Agenda | LGBT+ Staff Network | Date Time Location

Introductions Chair

Apologies Chair/Admin

Minutes of Last Meeting Chair/Admin

Feedback from LGBT+ Conference Chair/Network Member

Results and Feedback from the Stonewall Equality Index EDI Representative/Chair

Calendar of Events

• LGBT+ History Month Celebration Chair The Stonewall Index • Transgender Day of Visibility 31st March was usually the • IDAHO 17th May domain of the EDI Pride Chair Some networks had representative, with Communications Update a specific network close input from the • Intranet member who was Communications Representative chair/co-chairs • Twitter/Facebook co-ordinating Pride, • Posters but it was usually the chair who was most Orgranising socials Chair involved AOB Everyone

This would often be a way of canvassing ideas about a social from those present, Any Other Business and usually took items were often place at the end of the rushed, as the meeting meeting had overrun, even though this was sometimes the only time members could raise concerns events was an organisational tool which NHS organisations but also from other public sparked activity in the network, it often felt and private sector organisations. They were that organising multiple events throughout more likely to organise events and activities the year could be a burden for the network with external LGBT+ organisations than they and that often they did not feel particularly were with the other staff networks at their meaningful. trust, such as the BAME or disability network. Socials were a regular part of most of the case study networks, although the survey showed that only 60% of the respondents came from networks that organised social events. The nature of the socials included visits to the pub, family picnics, film nights, sporting activities, museum visits, Christmas meals etc. It was often lamented that these were sparsely attended, and some networks did not Most of the activities carried out by the prioritise them as a result. The socials that we networks focused on improving the were present at and observed varied in terms organisation. With the presence of EDI staff, of attendance, but they were often the time the networks were often consulted about trust where networks’ members were able to do policy and asked for their input. The survey more personal sharing and the atmosphere found a similar pattern, with more than half was a lot more relaxed compared to the quite of the members agreeing that they work formal meetings. with EDI leads, HR and senior management to improve policies for LGBT+ employees, Another major activity for all the networks patients and service users. For example, the was involvement in Pride. The survey results network in Trust B was helping to develop reflected this, with 84% of our respondents and launch a new set of policies for trans staff reporting that their LGBT+ network and patients. The majority of the networks participates in Pride. A lot of time was in our case studies were involved in their spent in meetings deciding which Prides to organisation’s submission to the Stonewall attend (in the towns and cities nearby, and Workplace Equality Index, although the the smaller disability and trans Prides), how depth of this involvement varied. Usually, the they would advertise it to staff, designing the chair/co-chair would be working closely with float, banners or other materials, attending the EDI representatives to collect evidence for meetings with Pride organisers to get health the submission. The Stonewall Index would and safety information. Pride was viewed frame many of the network’s activities, as they as a celebratory activity, which would attract would receive comprehensive feedback on staff outside of the network and raise the areas to improve. One activity recommended profile of the organisation to the wider public. by Stonewall was reverse mentoring, which a See figure on page 33 for more insights. number of the networks did. This was where a network member would work closely with When we asked what or who drives network someone from senior management to make activities, the survey identified three major them more aware of issues that LGBT+ forces: network members (79%), national people faced. and international LGBT events (75%) and EDI leads in the trust (73%). This largely During our observations, a few of the corresponds to our observations and networks organised larger events or interviews, where we found that activities conferences for staff and other external were propelled by the ongoing calendar partners. These were well attended and of events and that the network was largely organised, and they included external driven by the members - in particular, the speakers and performances. The networks chair or co-chairs. The members recognised seemed to be in close contact with other the influence of the EDI representatives LGBT+ networks in their area, from nearby or leads, but this was mostly regarded as 34 positive: In the survey, we found that members agree that NHS EDI initiatives have an impact on the way LGBT+ networks organise their events (61%). In terms of other drivers of network activities, the survey found that 52% of members agree that the Stonewall Index Application drives and leads network activities. 46% of the members agree that senior management and HR drive network activities.

Materials

One activity that received a lot of attention within the network meetings was the design, production and distribution of materials. Correspondingly, the survey found that 58% of members are part of networks that produce and distribute these ‘freebies’. These were usually lanyards printed in the rainbow colours, but also included rainbow badges, ‘straight ally’ mugs, rainbow and purple (for bi-visibility) shoelaces, rainbow window stickers, t-shirts for Pride, pens, wristbands and banners. We observed that the production of materials was a popular Jo activity for networks because it was seen as a relatively easy, proactive undertaking, with Co-chair perhaps more tangible results than other activities. Conversation around materials Trust B focused on how they were going to be funded and distributed. Funding for the materials usually came via a senior manager who had greater access to resources, but some also

35 came through the trust’s charitable funds and person wearing it, but she remained sceptical. the EDI budget. The amount of materials Members also recognised that people wanted produced varied from trust to trust; in the them because they looked nice, which Rachel case of lanyards, for example, one trust only discussed in her interview: purchased around 250 (Trust B) and another purchased 4,000 (Trust I). The lanyards in Don’t get me wrong, they are quite bright and particular were described as very popular colourful and a lot of people miss the point of items, in that people were ‘vying for them’ why they were created, so some people took and they were ‘flying out the door’. In the the point and some people didn’t but, er, you meetings, there were some assumptions made know, that’s fair, you will get that. about what they achieved, without much (Rachel, Trust D) supporting evidence. They were generally described as a way of raising awareness There were also some fears about and making LGBT+ people visible within mainstreaming, and if the lanyards would the organisation. For staff, the lanyards lose their supposed effect if every staff were intended to be a ‘conversation starter’ member wore one, which is why Trust B (Trust D) or a signal that ‘at least I can be had decided to limit the distribution of their comfortable with that person’ (Trust D). lanyards: For patients, the lanyards were intended to signal that the person wearing it was ‘a Also, it’s something about them being special, trusted person I could talk to’ (Trust C). because if suddenly everyone had them they Although these statements were based on wouldn’t maybe have much effect, if you see members’ assumptions, in the interviews the what I mean. participants described how the lanyards made (Trust B) them feel; Justin, for example, stated: Trust B was one of the trusts that were I wear the rainbow lanyard, and things like attempting to get people to sign a pledge that. And, and seeing other people wearing it when they received a lanyard so that they always gives me that little sense of, would fully understand what it meant to yeah, not alone. wear it and their responsibilities to others. (Justin, Trust A) Although there were critical voices around the topic of lanyards and materials more Jo talked anecdotally about the effect of generally, we did find that they were mostly wearing her lanyard around service users: regarded as a really positive action for networks to take. I really do believe that they’ve opened up the opportunity for people to feel able to kind of ask...And I think that’s true for staff but also for service users. So I have a lot of questions Allies from service users. (Jo, Trust B) Allies or ‘straight allies’ were involved in seven out of nine networks in our case Some members were concerned that people studies. In the two networks that did not did not know what it meant to wear the include allies, there was discussion about lanyards. In Trust H, for example, Deborah how and when to involve them. Across the posed this question in a meeting: case studies, ally or ‘straight ally’ involvement was largely regarded as positive for LGBT+ I see you walking past me in a corridor. networks and an indicator of success. To have You’ve got this beautiful lanyard on. How allies as members was seen as an inclusive am I going to know about this particular step, and to not include them would make network? (Deborah, Trust H) the network ‘exclusive’ and defeat its overall purpose. Discussion around the purpose The response to this question was that she of networks within meetings indicated that could look on the intranet or stop and ask the 36 the critical element of membership was ‘to support the inclusion agenda’, ‘regardless of generally positive about ally involvement how you identify’ (Stella, ally, Trust A). It was and contribution, as the figure below shows, not just other allies that felt this way. When although heterosexual cisgender members we discussed ally involvement at our feedback (who we would normally expect to identify meetings, an LGBT+ identifying member as allies) are more positive compared to expressed: the LGBT+ identifying members. Allies are significantly more in favour of LGBT+ I quite like the fact that allies are getting networks to be open to SA (93%) than involved, and nobody knowing what LGBT+ members (79%). We also asked the anybody’s identity is, and we’re all here LGBT+ identifying members whether ‘SAs because we support LGBT rights. (Trust D) create tension within the network’, and only 6% agreed with this statement. Hence, individual identities were coded as less significant than general support for In terms of engagement, the survey found LGBT+ rights and inclusion. that heterosexual cisgender members, who we refer to as allies, are more likely to In the survey, 80% of all LGBT+ network engage with the network through attending members said their network has straight allies meetings (87.5%) compared to LGBT+ (SA), with 13% not being sure. Members are members (73.9%). All other engagement

Notes: * indicates significant difference between proportions at p=0.05. types (receiving emails, taking part in we found that LGBT+ identifying members activities, organising events etc.) were more led the meetings, and that the allies present or less similar across the two groups. With occupied more of a support or administrative regard to influence, 40% of members believed role. In Trust C, which was the network that that allies drive their network’s agenda to only allowed allies to join in the second half some degree. Interestingly, fewer LGBT+ of the meeting, there were some concerns members agreed that allies influence network raised about the number and commitment of activities (37%) than the allies themselves allies and their effect on the meeting: (55%). The case studies showed that most Trust C was a bit of an outlier, partly because LGBT+ identifying members were not it had so many allies attending meetings concerned about allies having too much of (one meeting we observed had around 20, an influence in the network, although it has compared to three or four LGBT+ members). been suggested it would be a problem if their What it did demonstrate to us, however, was power did increase. In our observations, the problems that can surface when allies 37 Joe - Trust C

dominate the network, at least numerically, outside their usual work hours, placing including scepticism from LGBT+ identifying additional stress and pressure on them. members around ally involvement and their motives for being part of the network. Time pressures were not just discussed by the chairs or co-chairs; the topic was also raised in the meetings and interviews as one of the main reasons why people did not attend Challenges meetings at all or infrequently. Usually this was discussed in the context of disclosure In all our case studies, the LGBT+ networks and release: if people were not comfortable faced similar challenges and barriers. The sharing their sexuality/gender identity at most common issue was around having work they would find it difficult to ask for the time to attend meetings and take part release to attend meetings, particularly in the in network activities. The participants in context of a highly pressurised environment the study did not identify any real negative like the NHS. When asked about the barriers consequences of being part of the network, to attending network meetings and events, except the extra pressure it put on their Keith’s response was fairly typical: time. They often wished they were able to dedicate more time to the network but could not because of their role. In particular, those that chaired the network discussed the cost of this role on their life outside of work, as they would often have to work evenings and weekends to keep up with the requirements of the role. Zaid (Trust B) discussed feeling like he was ‘failing the network’ as he became more senior in his job and Peter (Trust I) talked about staying up until 3am on occasion in order to finish work for the network. A total of 25 LGBT+ network chairs/co-chairs responded to our survey. Two in three had no formalised time allocation to carry out the necessary duties for their staff network, and two in five reported that they complete all network-related work on top of their normal working hours. Only a quarter of LGBT+ network chairs had a set amount of Keith time allocated to carry out network duties during work hours. This raises issues around the sustainability of the network if chairs are Trust B 38 expected to do a lot of work for the network Being unable to get release from duties or third of members spend less than one hour organise cover was cited as the main reason a month on network activities, and a quarter why there were very few frontline and/or spend one to two hours. 28% spend at least clinical staff present at meetings. Those that three hours a month, and these individuals did attend also talked of time pressures, but are mostly chairs and co-chairs. This they usually had more flexibility in their roles corresponded to our observations from the and were more able to manage their own case study networks, where most activity was diaries. As we observed network meetings carried out by a small core membership. and only interviewed network members, it was difficult for us to ascertain exactly why Consequently, meetings often revolved people did not attend or become members, around developing strategies to get more but the survey responses from those who members and increase attendance, such as: were not involved or were involved in the creating and distributing a survey asking past confirmed that time and release issues members for preferences about the time, are a major factor in their non-involvement. location and frequency of meetings, speaking at staff inductions, organising staff-wide Related to time, membership and lack of events, publicity campaigns and getting attendance was a topic that dominated allies involved in the meetings. Encouraging quite a lot of the meetings we observed. new members to join was seen as part of the Some trusts were particularly focused on network’s aims and a growing membership this issue, such as Trust A, where the chair was seen a marker of success. seemed increasingly frustrated with the lack of attendance at meetings and other events Another challenge discussed at network organised by the LGBT+ network: meetings was a lack of financial resources. The assumption was that organisational funding demonstrated investment and acknowledgment of the network by senior management, and a lack of resources was seen as something that held the networks back from achieving their aims. They accessed funding from EDI leads and their budget or from their senior sponsor’s budget. It was rare for networks to have their own discreet budget that they controlled. Similarly, the survey demonstrated that there was limited funding and allocated budgets for network activities. Among the 25 LGBT+ Robert network chairs and co-chairs, only seven XXX responded positively to our question on budget availability for network activities. TTrustrust AA Funding was often discussed in the context of wider constraints on NHS budgets and the issues around spending ‘public money’; for example, when discussing providing cakes The survey data also suggested that many at a network event, the EDI lead at Trust members were not very engaged in the A said ‘I’m just mindful how we - it comes network. When we asked members how across if we’re too elaborate with it. I don’t many network activities they had attended know what the context of the Trust is in in the last year, we found that only 44% had terms of spending money’ (Rhea, Trust A). attended at least three network activities We did not get the impression that networks (e.g., meetings, training, socials and special felt competitive with other networks over events). The survey also indicated that time resources, and in the survey, we found little spent on the network was not shared equally evidence for this either. On a competitiveness across the membership, as more than one- 39 scale for resources, from not competitive at all (1) to very competitive (5), those who prioritised the LGBT+ networks claim that their network is not competitive, with an average of 1.8 points. LGBT+ networks were slightly less competitive than BAME, Disability and Mental Health networks, but there were no significant differences in competitiveness to other networks.

40 5. Role and impact of LGBT+ Networks

LGBT+ networks serve both managerial of people not being able to ‘be themselves’ and individual needs to improve the work at work. This echoes our survey findings on environment. However, the network disclosure and the difficulties of being fully members, EDI and HR representatives and or partially open or not at all. Part of the chief executives we interviewed often found networks’ role, therefore, was to provide a it hard to describe the role and purpose of support place for LGBT+ identifying staff. LGBT+ networks. This seemed to stem from However, the main problem identified was a difficulties in articulating the issues that lack of awareness amongst the general staff LGBT+ people faced in their organisation. about LGBT+ issues, and this was something Interestingly, the survey reported that 70% of the networks could remedy through LGBT+ and 80% of allies agreed that specific awareness campaigns and influencing issues that affect LGBT+ staff/patients in their organisational policy and climate. Our trust shaped their network activities. This analysis of the role and impact of LGBT+ proved not to be the case in the case studies. networks concern these three main aims: Members often referred to incidences of raising awareness and visibility, influencing bullying, harassment or discrimination, but the organisation and creating a supportive said that they personally had not heard of space and work environment. any of these happening in their organisation. When they had witnessed or experienced such incidences, it was unclear how the network had responded or how the existence of the network would reduce the prevalence of them.

Many referred to the low disclosure rates of LGBT+ staff in the NHS, and the problem 41 Raising awareness and visibility

‘Raising awareness’ was a term used frequently in meetings and in the interviews, and the ways of raising this awareness were through marking LGBT+ days every year, creating and producing lanyards etc. It was unclear exactly what they were raising awareness of and the effectiveness of this Tim | Trust AB awareness-raising on staff not involved in the In this way, the network was seen as part network. Sometimes this ‘raising awareness’ of the trust’s publicity machine, and a tool seemed to be centred on making the network to demonstrate a positive image and ethos. more prominent in the organisation and People also used vague phrases such as would be talked about as ‘raising the profile ‘promoting LGBT across the organisation’ of the network’ (Trust D). A higher profile (Erin, Trust A) when discussing the aims of would lead to more recognition by senior the network. Behind these statements was the management and another marker of success - implication that LGBT+ people are less visible more members - as Robert, the chair of Trust in the workplace in comparison to their A, discussed: heterosexual and/or cisgender peers, and therefore need to be promoted or made more visible. The networks therefore are meant as a mechanism for bringing the experiences of LGBT+ workers into greater focus, with the hope of making the working environment more inclusive.

The impact of these awareness-raising activities was difficult to measure and evidence. Many of the networks felt that their activities, such as attending Pride events, producing and distributing lanyards and marking LGBT+ days, had raised awareness successfully and brought about greater visibility, such as Robin, the chair from Trust G:

Robert Trust A

Sometimes this raising awareness seemed to be tied to making the staff, patients/service users and wider public aware that the trust was a fair, inclusive place to work and be cared for, which the chief executive at Trust D Robin suggested: 42 Trust G Again, it was not quite clear what was being made visible, beyond the presence of LGBT+ people in the organisation. That the network was better known in the organisation was also seen as a success and measure of impact:

Richard Trust B

A successful network was seen as one that opened up friendly communication channels between minority staff and senior management and was able to influence the organisation. Rita, the executive sponsor Joe of the network in Trust B, described the networks as a way to focus senior Trust H management on specific issues and ‘hold the mirror up’ to what was going on in the organisation. Rhea, the EDI lead from Trust We repeatedly observed and were told that A, said that the network was a ‘mechanism or one of the central purposes of the network a conduit to find out what’s happening in the was to raise awareness and visibility. More trust for LGBT people, but also it’s a conduit than half of the LGBT+ network members into the strategy to help us deliver it’. In this in our survey sample strongly agree that capacity, the network is a resource for the their network increased visibility of LGBT+ organisation, a way to access the experiences employees in their trust. Furthermore, of LGBT+ staff and, in some cases, service activities carried out with this intent were users. For the network to have an impact presented as evidence of the network’s then, it was regarded as crucial that they form success, although few attempts were made to and maintain this relationship in order to be measure if awareness had increased amongst influential: staff. In addition, the nature of the awareness remained ill-defined: was it awareness and visibility of LGBT+ staff, of LGBT+ issues or simply just of the network itself?

Influencing the organisation

Network members were keen not to describe themselves as activists, preferring to use softer words like ‘advocate’ or ‘supporter’. They did not want to be seen as troublemakers within their organisations and this was echoed by senior management, who wanted the networks to act as a critical voice Keith, Ally or friend but not be too disruptive: Trust B 43 For those that felt their network was not as Supportive space achieving as much as it hoped, influencing senior management was a key ingredient in Raising awareness, profile, visibility and making the network a success: becoming influential in the organisation were seen as key aims of networks, and the markers of success. Although many members had joined the network to meet people and feel supported, the idea that the network should provide support to members and other LGBT+ staff was mentioned less often. Some, like Nina, felt it was the main goal of the network:

David, Chair Trust I

The network was envisaged as a group of experts and advocates for their organisation in respect of LGBT+ matters, and this was confirmed by our survey data. From our survey responses, we found that 84% of LGBT+ network members agree that staff networks offer advice to management on matters concerning LGBT+ staff and patients/ service-users in their trust, and 82% agree that their LGBT+ network is consulted on policy and practice on issues regarding sexual minorities.9 Over half of the employees in staff networks agree that staff networks contribute to the managerial decision- making process. Network members in general Nina consider staff networks as an integral part of equality and diversity management (86%), although fewer LGBT+ network members Trust C agree (75%).

Interestingly, HR representatives and senior 9 This is mostly driven by heterosexual cisgenders’ positive management were more likely to focus on the perception of their network (92%) than LGBT+ members (79%). support element of networks. This is perhaps because they do not attend meetings regularly and therefore do not know about the fact that emphasis is largely on organisational issues. Rita, the senior executive sponsor at Trust B, COMPARED TO had experienced this shift in focus first-hand, which she interpreted positively:

44 the problems LGBT+ people faced in their organisation. As a result, the role of the network tended to drift towards acting as a useful resource for the organisation, and its aims were around increasing and maintaining its profile and influence. This meant that activities like a successful publicity event, involvement in a Pride or introducing a rainbow lanyard scheme were regarded as major successes for a network, precisely because these things were tangible and could be evidenced. Similarly, well-attended meetings and the growth of the network were achievements. The ability to offer support to Rita members and other staff, although discussed relatively frequently as an aim, was more Exec Sponsor difficult to quantify, collect evidence for and be rewarded for within the organisation, and Trust B as a result it was deprioritised.

Support was not prioritised by members, In the survey, we found that while the perhaps because they felt that focusing on majority of the LGBT+ network members support would make them less legitimate agree on the positive impact of their network in the eyes of senior management. They on their trust’s working environment, 30% could be right, as one chief executive told state that staff networks make no difference us it was very important that the network to what it is like to work in their trusts. A should not ‘just be a talking shop’ (Trust H). further investigation shows that the positive The network meetings were talked about impact of staff networks on the work as a ‘safe haven’ where members could feel environment is enjoyed slightly more by allies comfortable (Trust G), but the meetings we (83%) than by LGBT+ members (68%). observed did not necessarily reflect that. It was not that the meetings felt unsafe or there Through our case studies, we found very was not a friendly atmosphere, but they were little evidence of networks promoting career not often opened up as places of support, support and progression for its members largely because of the focus on the agenda. (through networking events and mentoring When members did seek support about issues schemes, etc.) and this was not deemed a they had experienced at work, it was usually priority. This was reflected in the survey data, towards the end of the meeting in the ‘any where we found that only 12% of members other business’ section. Here, they did receive had taken up the mentoring opportunities supportive comments and advice, but this in their LGBT+ network, whereas the was often rushed and had to be picked up by proportion of mentors was double this the chair/co-chairs by email after everyone in BAME networks (22%). While at the had left the meeting. Our survey told us organisational level, staff networks appear that the majority (77%) of LGBT+ members to have a positive influence on the work agree that staff networks do take notice of environment, their effect does not permeate members’ complaints. What arose from our to individual experiences. For instance, case studies were questions about whether the only 41% of (LGBT+) network members meeting facilitated this support. agreed that staff networks reduce turnover intentions. The purpose, role and aims of the network were quite intangible, and as we have said, this was partly because the participants in this study found it difficult to identify 45 6. Voice, silence and (in)visibility

Voice and visibility were two common words used within both meetings and our interviews. The assumption was that within heteronormative and cisnormative working environments, LGBT+ people’s voices are marginalised, and they are less visible. The network was described as providing a ‘voice for LGBT staff, patients and the community’ (Charles, Trust E) within the organisation. Our survey found that 79% of LGBT+ network members and 81% of other network members believe that staff networks enable individuals to voice their dissatisfactions. When voice was discussed, it usually referred to a collective voice, but not always. For Karen example, Karen from Trust G, when asked what her role was in the network, said that Trust G she wanted to give a voice for bisexual people, who were under-represented: Although the networks recognised that they were an umbrella group, and their members had a range of different identities and experiences, they were often placed in a position by senior management where they had to speak with one voice. Melanie, an HR 46 representative, explained: something that the network has to get to grips with, rather than identities that those around the table may share. It was clear that although they knew these groups and individuals existed, they presumed that they were not part of the network and therefore they did not have access to these experiences. This had the effect of making other identities less visible and created a homogenous collective Melanie, HR identity. This collective identity was also overwhelmingly white, as BAME staff were Trust F rarely well represented in the network and discussion about the intersection of different identities was minimal. Karen, a BAME The danger we perceived here is that the network member and EDI representative, networks were not always equipped to be a discussed how this lack of representation mouthpiece for the LGBT+ staff and others offered a senior management a skewed view because they were not that representative of the LGBT+ population and their needs: themselves. As recorded above, there was a dominance of gay men - and to a lesser extent lesbians - within these networks, and this is symptomatic of wider issues within the LGBT+ community, where the strongest and most visible groups are white, homosexual, cisgendered and - usually - men. This culture has the potential to discourage identification and openness, because it is assumed that everybody is either gay or lesbian (or a straight ally) and therefore vocalising another identity (bisexual, queer, pansexual, asexual etc.) marks you out as different and your voice is less likely to heard, both within the meetings and as part of the collective LGBT+ network voice.

Networks were marketed as ‘LGBT+’, but this actually obscured the reality of who was a member, and the groups did not come across as particularly inclusive to those who were not gay men or lesbians. For example, people who identified as anything other than gay or lesbian were othered by the discourses used within the meetings, e.g., ‘Obviously, we’re keen to make sure that sort of, the, the queer, erm, the non-binary, sort of, broader sexual identities, erm, are properly represented, so we’re not too old’ (Trust F) and ‘it gets very confusing, doesn’t it? You know, when you Karen hear of gender fluid, binary, non-binary, pansexual, a long list now’ (Trust A). These Trust F identities are discussed as though they were 47 The collective voice which was amplified (Trust B), ‘We don’t have anybody from a through the LGBT+ network was transgender point of view’ (Trust C) and unrepresentative of the wider LGBT+ ‘There is no trans in the group, I don’t think community. there’s a trans in the organisation’ (Trust A).

Another factor which hindered the fostering Much of this unawareness appeared to stem of different voices and visibility was the from a disinclination to make people ‘out’ silences around identities within the themselves at meetings; there was a culture meetings. The absence of openness about of ‘don’t ask, don’t know’. When we discussed members’ sexual and gender identities and, representation and lack of knowledge around for the most part, the absence of any kind identities during the interviews and feedback of discussion around LGBT+ identities, was meetings, it was generally regarded as positive striking at the LGBT+ network meetings that people were able to remain private we observed. In most of the case study about their identities, and it did not matter organisations (but not all) a depersonalised that allies and LGBT+ identifying members atmosphere was apparent at meetings, and were indistinguishable because ‘we’re all here people rarely discussed their lives outside because we support LGBT rights’ (Trust D). It of work. Whilst a minority of chairs always is telling, however, that network chairs made insisted on everyone introducing themselves, little attempt to understand the identities and for much of the time, introductions were representation of their members via more a forgotten item on the agenda, and it was confidential means. For instance, a number difficult for us and other newcomers to even of the networks surveyed their members learn the names of those in attendance. In during the observation period but did not Trust D, for example, introductions never include questions about identity, instead featured, and names were never offered, until concentrating on preference for location a new chair took over towards the end of our and timing of meetings. There was perhaps a observations. If introductions were carried reluctance to discover and discuss identities out, members almost exclusively focused on in case the unrepresentativeness of the their role in the organisation and where they networks was unmasked. were based; even information about their role in the network and how long they had been a We identified that one of the causes of these member was not forthcoming. silences was the shape and climate of the meetings, which felt procedural in content The lack of conversation about sexuality and tone. A typical entry from our field notes or gender identity meant that we often did reads ‘group is friendly but very much felt not know how members identified until the like a ‘meeting’’ (Trust A). The presence of interview stage (and we did not interview equality and diversity leads, communications all members). This lack of knowledge, representatives, admin support and straight however, was not just limited to us and new allies may have had a silencing effect. It members of the group, as through interviews meant that it was often difficult to tell who with network members, and particularly was an LGBT+ identifying member and who chairs, we realised that they too were largely was not. Some members who were not ‘out’ unaware of who the membership was made at work and still wanted to attend meetings up of. They made vague statements such as may have preferred this, but it also meant ‘I think there’s a good representation’ (Trust the chances of identities being discussed in D), ‘I don’t think it’s overly represented by a any depth became less likely. In addition, particular group’ (Trust C) and ‘we did have the presence of non-LGBT+ staff meant somebody who identified as bisexual, but he’s the character of the meetings became more left, left the trust’ (Trust C). There were also bureaucratic and focused on organisational assumptions made about the demographics agendas and members’ professional roles. of the wider staff population, particularly Meetings could often be taken up with around trans staff, e.g., ‘I’m aware of two discussion of wider HR initiatives, presented 48 other trans people in the organisation’ by equality and diversity officers, not necessarily for input from the group but was in Trust A, where there had been an for their information. It was clear in a few ongoing discussion about the wording of a case studies that the equality and diversity new poster for the network. The equality and representatives were quite a dominant force diversity lead became quite forceful about in the network, and this may have also had an this wording, wanting the network to use the inhibiting and regulatory effect. One example trust’s corporate branding and phrases:

49 This exchange demonstrates the extent to of organisational aims and constraints within which corporate vision could seep into the meetings. Remarks were frequently made the meetings at times. We can see that by all who attended about the time pressures the network members put up quite little faced by members and other staff, the lack of resistance to change, which should have been financial resources and budgetary constraints fundamental: the purpose of the network. The within the trust and the overarching need to language used by Rhea effectively obscured prioritise patient care. Obviously, these topics the network’s LGBT+ identity, branding it as are important to staff and affect the operation a group based around including everybody of the network - for instance, if members in the organisation, rather than a space cannot attend meetings because they are too for LGBT+ staff and effectively erasing busy. However, the pervasiveness of these differences of any kind. conversations demonstrates the inability of members to switch off at least in part from It was not just the attendance and their professional role within the organisation interjections of non-members (although once they entered the meeting. Deborah, a some equality and diversity representatives chaplain at Trust H, discussed this during a viewed themselves as members of the discussion about identities in our feedback network) that underlined the omnipresence meeting:

Deborah Trust H

Deborah’s comments highlighted why found that network meetings were structured members may find it challenging within a and conducted in ways which encouraged network meeting to express identities that absences and silences around identities. do not obviously pertain to work. Within a This had the effect of obscuring differences, formal meeting setting, it is difficult to switch creating a collective homogenous voice and off from the minutiae and complexities of making minority sexual and gender identities the ‘day job’, and this permeates the tone even less visible in the workplace. and content of the meetings as a whole. We

50 7. Recommendations

The findings support a number of activities are also likely to be more effective recommendations for the further and focused on the target groups. development and progress of LGBT+ employee networks. The recommendations are aimed at those already involved in LGBT+ networks, those who are thinking about joining or setting up a network and the organisations that have networks. We accept that there are no set guidelines for supporting and running a successful LGBT+ network but, equally, we recognise that some factors are likely to help you and your colleagues.

Networks 2. Make space for sharing personal 1. Be clear on your purpose stories

When asked the purpose of individual Operationalising LGBT+ staff networks with networks, the answer was not always clear: formal agendas and organisational pressures for example, whether the networks are to mark international LGBT+ days can limit essentially working for members and/or the space for personal sharing. Creating space employer? Having a clear vision helps to unite and a platform to share personal stories network members and to signal what support is important for two key reasons. First, it is needed from the organisation. Network enables members to get to know each other 51 and to build mutual support. Second, it or communication colleagues, ask them to provides vital information about the context attend meetings. that the networks operate in.

3. Get to know your members 5. Work with other staff networks and

Encouraging people to share identities external partners and respecting their desire for privacy can be a balancing act. However, prioritising Share experiences and build alliances with identities and openly discussing them helps other staff networks within your working to challenge the status quo. Knowing your environment. This opens doors for networks members also provides vital information to explore how identities intersect and what about the representation of groups and different staff networks have in common. helps guide development of outreach Working with other staff networks can also programmes to address under-representation. help to reach out to less represented groups Putting measures in place to balance over- and understand the (in)direct barriers to representation of any group/s is equally as their participation. Working with networks important. and other groups outside of your organisation can also give you new ideas and have a greater impact in your communities. 4. Seek support when you need it

Support from senior management (e.g., executive sponsorship) can facilitate access to resources, raise the network’s profile and help with giving staff allocated time to attend meetings and/or to contribute to network activities. However, support of this kind may place demands on networks to evidence their work, particularly around impact. Senior management support can also steer networks towards more strategic organisational goals, which may work well for some networks but move other networks further away from their own goals and the needs of their members. It is recommended to request information from your organisation about LGBT+ employees and patients/service users. This will help shape network activities and make them more 52 focused. When input is needed from HR, EDI Organisations 3. Formalise time allocation and time release to support the growth and 1. Help raise the network profile sustainability of networks

Our research shows that networks are often Two-thirds of network chairs have no seen as part of the Trust’s publicity machine, formalised time allocation to carry out duties and a tool to demonstrate a positive image for their staff network, and two in every five and ethos. Arranging or taking part in a complete all network-related work on top of photo shoot with a rainbow flag, tweeting their normal working hours. Only a quarter about Pride or announcing the Trans Day of of LGBT+ network chairs have a set time Remembrance is unlikely to benefit LGBT+ allocation to carry out network duties during networks in any meaningful way or the work hours. This raises concerns about the communities they serve. Show your support sustainability of networks and the wellbeing in other ways. This could include promoting, of chairs if they are expected to do a lot of the resourcing and attending network activities work for the network outside of their usual and using every opportunity to commend work hours. Dedicated time is also needed for and endorse work undertaken by LGBT+ staff to attend network meetings. Not being networks. Give the network credit when it is able to get release from duties or organise due. cover was cited as the main reason why there were very few frontline and/or clinical staff present at meetings. 2. Support and consult networks

Our research shows that networks are often seen as part of the Trust’s publicity machine, and a tool to demonstrate a positive image and ethos. Arranging or taking part in a photo shoot with a rainbow flag, tweeting about Pride or announcing the Trans Day of Remembrance is unlikely to benefit LGBT+ networks in any meaningful way or the communities they serve. Show your support in other ways. This could include promoting, resourcing and attending network activities and using every opportunity to commend and endorse work undertaken by LGBT+ networks. Give the network credit when it is due.

53 8. References

Bachmann, C.L, & Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT York: University of York. The report can be in Britain: Work report. London: Stonewall. accessed from the project website: https:// lgbtnetworks.org.uk Cocchiara, F. K., Connerley, M. L., & Bell, M. P. (2010). “A GEM” for increasing the Hoel, H., Lewis, D., and Einarsdóttir, effectiveness of diversity training. Human A. (2014). The ups and downs of LGBs’ Resource Management, 49(6), 1089-1106. workplace experiences: Discrimination, doi:10.1002/hrm.20396 bullying and harassment of lesbian, gay and bisexual employees in Britain. Manchester: Colgan, F., & McKearney, A. (2012). Visibility Manchester Business School. and voice in organisations: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employee Hoel, H., Lewis, D., and Einarsdóttir, A. (in networks. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: press). Bullying and Sexual Orientation. In An international Journal, 331(4), 359-378. P. D’Cruz (Editor), Handbook on Workplace Bullying. International Association on Einarsdóttir, A., Hoel, H., and Lewis, Workplace Bullying and Harassment. D. (2015). ‘It’s nothing personal’: Anti- homosexuality in the British workplace. Jones, K. P., King, E. B., Nelson, J., Geller, Sociology, 49(6), 1183-1199. D. S., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2013). Beyond the Business Case: An Ethical Perspective Einarsdóttir, A., Hoel, H., and Lewis, D. of Diversity Training. Human Resource (2016). Fitting the bill? Disclosure and (dis) Management, 52(1), 55-74. embodiment of sexual identities. Work, Employment and Society. 30(3) 489–505. Jonsen, K., Tatli, A., Özbilgin, M. F., & Bell, M. P. (2013). The tragedy of the uncommons: Einarsdóttir, A., Mumford, K., Birks, Y., Reframing workforce diversity. Human Aguirre, E., Lockyer, B., and Sayli, M. (2020). Relations, 66(2), 271-294. LGBT+ employee networks within the 54 NHS: Technical report and data addendum. 55 Dr Anna Einarsdóttir, Professor Karen Mumford, Professor Yvonne Birks, Dr Bridget Lockyer and Dr Melisa Sayli

Design by Nifty Fox Creative, 2020

56